The President Releases Proof Against George Soros Regarding His Dangerous Funding Schemes
George Soros’ network of organizations is helping bankroll the “No Kings” protests that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and tens of thousands of demonstrators plan to join on Saturday, according to new disclosures and archived grant data.
Soros, a billionaire investor and one of the Democratic Party’s most prolific donors, is the founder of the Open Society Foundations, which oversees the Open Society Action Fund. In 2023, that fund issued a two-year grant of $3 million to the progressive group Indivisible, according to public filings. The stated purpose was to support the organization’s “social welfare activities,” Fox News reported.
Indivisible is currently serving as the group managing participant data and communications for the “No Kings” protests taking place in Washington, D.C., and in cities nationwide.
Soros’ foundations say they have distributed more than $32 billion globally to advance what they describe as “open and democratic societies.” His son, Alex Soros, serves as chairman of the board.
Indivisible’s website lists Ezra Levin as executive co-director, alongside his wife, Leah Greenberg. Greenberg previously served as policy director for former Virginia gubernatorial candidate Tom Perriello, who later became executive director of the Open Society Foundations from 2018 through 2023 — deepening organizational ties between the two entities.
In 2017, Indivisible also received a $350,000 grant from Tides Advocacy, an arm of the left-leaning Tides Network. The Tides Foundation, another affiliate, has previously faced criticism for funding groups accused of supporting anti-Israel demonstrations and campus unrest.
While the 2024 grant report has not yet been released by the IRS or Open Society Foundations, records show Soros’ network has provided Indivisible with more than $7.6 million since its formation in 2017.
A spokesperson for the Open Society Foundations told Fox News Digital that its grants are lawful and that the organization does not dictate or manage how recipients conduct their operations.
“We support a wide range of independent organizations that work to deepen civic engagement through peaceful democratic participation, a hallmark of any vibrant society and a right protected by the Constitution,” the spokesperson said. “Our grantees make their own decisions about their work, consistent with the law and the terms of their grant agreements.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was the first to draw attention to the Soros ties in an interview Thursday with Fox News host Sean Hannity, warning that the “No Kings” rallies could become violent.
“There’s considerable evidence that George Soros and his network are behind funding these rallies, which may well be riots all across the country,” Cruz said.
Cruz cited his STOP FUNDERs Act — short for “Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots” — which he introduced in July. The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to use RICO statutes to prosecute individuals or organizations that fund violent protests.
“This politicized march is being organized by Soros operatives and funded by Soros money. No one denies these basic facts,” Cruz told Fox News Digital. “The Trump administration and the Republican Congress are committed to countering this network of left-wing violence.”
The Open Society Foundations, in a statement on its website, emphasized that it does not pay or train protesters and “opposes all forms of violence, including violent protests.”
Indivisible’s own protest guide states, “Protests are most effective when we peacefully use our constitutionally protected rights of assembly and speech and properly prepare ahead of time.”
Republican lawmakers remain concerned about the network of funding that fuels mass demonstrations.
Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., sent a letter Thursday to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging an immediate investigation into the Open Society Foundations and other Soros-backed groups.
“The funding of organizations that engage in, support, or incite political violence must not be tolerated,” Carter wrote, citing a recent report that found Soros’ foundations distributed more than $80 million to groups accused of endorsing or participating in domestic extremism.
As protests prepare to fill streets nationwide this weekend, scrutiny over their funding — and Soros’ influence — continues to mount.
Viral Immigration Records Spark Heated Clash Between Digital Authenticity and Historical Context
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A photograph currently circulating on social media platforms has reignited a complex discussion regarding the historical immigration records of former First Lady Melania Trump. The image, which some online users claim shows a connection to the Jeffrey Epstein investigative materials, has prompted experts to provide clarity on standard modeling industry practices during the 1990s.
Standard Immigration Procedures for International Models
Legal analysts and immigration experts emphasize that the document in question—if authentic—likely reflects the standard administrative path for international talent entering the United States during that era.
The EB-1 "Extraordinary Ability" Visa: It is a matter of public record that Melania Trump was granted an EB-1 visa in 2001, a category reserved for individuals with acclaimed professional achievements. 📑
Agency Sponsorship: During the 1990s, it was standard procedure for modeling agencies or established business entities to act as sponsors for H-1B or O-1 visas.
The "Einstein Visa" Moniker: While some online discourse uses the term "Epstein Visa," experts clarify that the EB-1 is colloquially known as the "Einstein Visa" due to its high standards for entry.
Verification Challenges in the Digital Age
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(767x236:769x238)/donald-trump-melania-trump-031326-d2ff8463de1e43a18cd75533e48f55e7.jpg)
The emergence of this photograph highlights the significant challenge of separating verified investigative data from unconfirmed social media claims.
Lack of Official Confirmation: As of March 20, 2026, no federal agency, including the DOJ or USCIS, has verified a direct link between the former First Lady’s immigration filings and the Epstein investigative archives.
Contextual Misinterpretation: Supporters of the former First Lady argue that circulating individual pages without a full case file often leads to misleading narratives, especially in high-profile political environments. 🛡️
Digital Forensics: Observers note that in an era of sophisticated digital manipulation, the authenticity of any "leaked" image must be subjected to rigorous forensic review before being accepted as evidentiary fact.
Impact on the Broader Epstein Investigation
The focus on viral imagery comes amid the continued release of nearly three million pages of documents related to the Epstein case, a process that continues to fuel public demand for transparency.
Information Overload: The sheer volume of records released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act has created an environment where unverified snippets can quickly go viral, potentially obscuring legitimate investigative findings. ⚖️
The Threshold for Evidence: Legal commentators stress that "association" or the presence of a name in an administrative record does not constitute proof of a criminal connection or unusual favor.
Institutional Integrity: The controversy underscores the need for responsible reporting and a reliance on authenticated, primary sources to maintain the integrity of the ongoing national conversation. 📌
Trump Dragged Into Epstein Scandal as Logs Come to Light
1. The "May Briefing" Revelation
New reports from March 25, 2026, indicate that Attorney General Pam Bondi privately informed President Trump as early as May 2025 that his name appeared in investigative documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Internal Briefings: The meeting reportedly included Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. While the White House characterizes this as a "routine briefing," the timing suggests it may have triggered the administration’s recent aggressive stance against the release of the files. 📑
Context of Mention: Being mentioned in the files does not inherently imply criminal wrongdoing. Trump’s former social ties to Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s are well-documented, but the refusal to disclose the nature of these mentions is fueling public speculation. ⚖️
Official Stance: White House spokesperson Steven Cheung maintains that Trump cut ties with Epstein decades ago at Mar-a-Lago, labeling him a "creep" long before the 2008 or 2019 charges. 🛡️
2. The Congressional "GOP Revolt"
In a significant break from party discipline, key Republican members of the House Oversight Committee have joined Democrats to demand transparency.
Subpoena Power: The committee voted 8-2 to subpoena the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the Epstein files. High-profile MAGA Republicans, including Nancy Mace and Scott Perry, voted in favor, signaling a genuine desire for accountability within the base. 🏛️
Ghislaine Maxwell Testimony: The committee also moved to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell. Concerns have been raised regarding Todd Blanche’s planned meeting with her, as critics fear the potential use of presidential pardon power to influence her testimony. ⚖️
Public Perception: A March 2026 poll shows that only 40% of Republicans approve of how the President is handling the Epstein issue, while 36% disapprove, indicating a rare moment of vulnerability among his core supporters. 📉
3. The "Obama Distraction" Strategy
To counter the mounting Epstein headlines, the administration has revived a classic political tactic: targeting former President Barack Obama.
The Coup Allegation: Trump and Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard have accused the Obama administration of "manufacturing" intelligence regarding 2016 Russian election interference to stage a "coup" against Trump. 🛡️
Intelligence Consensus: Analysts note that Gabbard's claims contradict the 2020 bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, which confirmed that Russia did interfere to help Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. 📑
The Immunity Irony: Even as Trump calls for Obama’s prosecution, his own 2025 Supreme Court victory regarding presidential immunity would legally prevent his predecessor from being indicted for official acts. ⚖️
